4 ms·

But it's safe already! Extraordinary claims etc... etc... You make this assertion based on what data? Was it studied with the same scrutiny of the FDA? Because

by eksith 13y ago

But it's safe already! Extraordinary claims etc... etc... You make this assertion based on what data? Was it studied with the same scrutiny of the FDA? Because I can recall at least 4 medicines off the top of my head approved by the FDA that were recalled in the last few years for causing very serious unforeseen side-effects. Now those are drugs, things we (presumably) have an option of not taking. What about things that grow on their own and we don't have an option of saying no to? I.E. Food?

Xylakant 13y ago
Methinks your irony detector could use a little adjustment.
- eksith 13y ago
  Nothing I've said is extraordinary. "But it's safe already!" is an extraordinary claim. "The only thing that's different is..." is an extraordinary claim. "Methinks" is pretentious snark - eksith ...That's an extraordinary claim too, so feel free to call irony on that.
StavrosK 13y ago
Was the strain of wheat you're eating now, that was cross-pollinated with another one, safe to eat? Is it more or less safe than the GM one? Was it studied by the FDA?
- eksith 13y ago
  The strain of wheat I was eating already has hereditary homogeneity that my digestive tract is already accustomed to and countless numbers of my peers including my parents were already exposed to in the first place. What we have here is a massive overdose of "engineered", and that's the operative word here, homogeneity of a new strain which, besides being abandoned by this company for reasons they claim is a lack of market, could have unforeseen effects. My original line was "Was it studied with the same scrutiny of the FDA?" As in people are fallible and new medicines, like new breeds of wheat, can have unexpected effects on the human body regardless of how emphatically the investigators of said products claim they are safe for human use. "New" anything takes time for such a claim. We haven't spent enough of it.
  - StavrosK 13y ago
    Every one of the millions of random mutations in a new generation of anything makes it "new". The only difference is that GM wheat has a targeted mutation, rather than a random one.
    - malyk 13y ago
      The difference is that the random mutations are random across the genome while the GM wheat is universally altered in the same way. So, while you might not be harmed by the millions of random mutations in the non-GM slice of bread you eat, it's conceivable that if you eat a GM slice of bread where ever single cell has the same mutation your body might not react so favorably.
jerf 13y ago
"Extraordinary claims etc... etc... " Yes, indeed, but I'd submit at this point that the idea that existing GM food is dangerous after being consumed by so many people for so long is itself the extraordinary claim. If it's so dangerous, we shouldn't be arguing about it, it should be here. Because we're already consuming it in quantities far, far greater than any possible scientific study could ever bring to bear, and while that does not prove it's absolutely, utterly harmless, it does put a cap on how dangerous it can be. Arguments implicitly based on the idea that we haven't done it yet and we need to be careful about what we may do in the future are uselessly disconnected from the real world. It may also be true that it was insufficiently tested before release (I don't know, really), but that does not change the fact that it's out there now, and people are not keeling over dead, and there doesn't seem to be an appreciable signal coming from the GMness of the food in general. Or you'd be pointing to it, instead of theorizing.
- eksith 13y ago
  Thank you for writing a cogent, and much appreciated, calm reply with logic and reason. I can't dispute part of my reply was assertion as well, but (and I'm not making up excuses) I felt pithy remarks for either case weren't helpful.

by eksith 13y ago

Xylakant 13y ago

Methinks your irony detector could use a little adjustment.

eksith 13y ago
Nothing I've said is extraordinary. "But it's safe already!" is an extraordinary claim. "The only thing that's different is..." is an extraordinary claim. "Methinks" is pretentious snark - eksith ...That's an extraordinary claim too, so feel free to call irony on that.

StavrosK 13y ago

Was the strain of wheat you're eating now, that was cross-pollinated with another one, safe to eat? Is it more or less safe than the GM one? Was it studied by the FDA?

eksith 13y ago
The strain of wheat I was eating already has hereditary homogeneity that my digestive tract is already accustomed to and countless numbers of my peers including my parents were already exposed to in the first place. What we have here is a massive overdose of "engineered", and that's the operative word here, homogeneity of a new strain which, besides being abandoned by this company for reasons they claim is a lack of market, could have unforeseen effects. My original line was "Was it studied with the same scrutiny of the FDA?" As in people are fallible and new medicines, like new breeds of wheat, can have unexpected effects on the human body regardless of how emphatically the investigators of said products claim they are safe for human use. "New" anything takes time for such a claim. We haven't spent enough of it.
- StavrosK 13y ago
  Every one of the millions of random mutations in a new generation of anything makes it "new". The only difference is that GM wheat has a targeted mutation, rather than a random one.
  - malyk 13y ago
    The difference is that the random mutations are random across the genome while the GM wheat is universally altered in the same way. So, while you might not be harmed by the millions of random mutations in the non-GM slice of bread you eat, it's conceivable that if you eat a GM slice of bread where ever single cell has the same mutation your body might not react so favorably.

jerf 13y ago

"Extraordinary claims etc... etc... " Yes, indeed, but I'd submit at this point that the idea that existing GM food is dangerous after being consumed by so many people for so long is itself the extraordinary claim. If it's so dangerous, we shouldn't be arguing about it, it should be here. Because we're already consuming it in quantities far, far greater than any possible scientific study could ever bring to bear, and while that does not prove it's absolutely, utterly harmless, it does put a cap on how dangerous it can be. Arguments implicitly based on the idea that we haven't done it yet and we need to be careful about what we may do in the future are uselessly disconnected from the real world. It may also be true that it was insufficiently tested before release (I don't know, really), but that does not change the fact that it's out there now, and people are not keeling over dead, and there doesn't seem to be an appreciable signal coming from the GMness of the food in general. Or you'd be pointing to it, instead of theorizing.

eksith 13y ago
Thank you for writing a cogent, and much appreciated, calm reply with logic and reason. I can't dispute part of my reply was assertion as well, but (and I'm not making up excuses) I felt pithy remarks for either case weren't helpful.